In the United States, landowners are effectively insured

Primises 1 : The house owners are insured INDIRECTLY , How ? because after disaster govt give money.
Primises 2 : The govt help is responsible for lot of house in disaster area as it not give any incentive b4 , so that owner can determine which area is safe.

So the answer Clearly E, it assumes people can know which area are safe b4 they build .

1 Kudo If u Like

How can E be true? the potential builders are not same as landowners.

got it right at 2:36 mins

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

Meaning
If the Govt. give some benefit to the landowners then the landowners will do some study to find the best lands and construct safer houses.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.

B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.

C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.
The landowners will select the best lands and develop , so probability of disaster will be lesser ( and even if any disaster comes , they will be paid subsidy over the repair.)

Even i have chosen answer as 'D'
Thanks guys for explanation

The argument concludes that the “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands, because:
- land owners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters
- it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster
- If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed
E - It must assume that potential buyers are able to know which sites are safe if they are more selective. If it is not, whether they do research, they cannot be more selective. If it is, the conclusion is true.

Hi Guruprit,

Could you please explain how negating D weakens the conclusion???

Thanx.

hello,
it might be very late response , see the main purpose in argument that the author wants that if landowners become more selective then govt. has to spend less amount for repair as subsidy ,so in option D even if there is no diff. in subsidies provided by diff. states then how the conclusion will work as it said the more selective they become the less govt. has to spend . so D is actually weakening the.

hope it helps .

I am also confused between D and E.

In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.

The actuary's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection. - IF IT WERE TRUE - ASSUMPTION IT DEPENDS ON - then owners would choose more selectively, which the actuary says is currently the problem. Thus if consumers get back whatever they invested, then there would be no reason to be more informed about the place of building a house. But if there was, say equal or more, there is no incentive

E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster. In the beginning it self, author says consumers don't really asses this. Then how can it be the assumption?

Landowners insured against natural disasters => high % of houses are built on disaster prone areas as there is no incentive to do otherwise.
If owners were more selective, the area would need to be safe before the builders could build on them.

Gap - It's easy to know if a particular piece of land is safe.

A - Out. The arguments mentions nothing about the size of houses, or their arrangement.
B - Out. Irrelevant.
C - Out. The Argument says owners should be more selective, but it doesn't mean anything about them being careful, or if the size of a house makes a difference.
D - Out. This statement goes a little too beyond the scope of this argument. We need to make an assumption by considering the relief amount paid by govts. of different states for different areas, to even consider this as an unstated assumption for the argument.
E - Keep. Builders can know which lands are safe.

Why E?
If I negate E i.e. there is no way to know which piece of land is safe from natural disasters, then this entire argument FALLS apart. If I cannot know which piece of land is safe, no amount of financial incentive from the govt. or selection from a land owner will help in building houses in areas 'considered' safe.

That's why E is the answer.

Oh! Yes D states too many assumptions - different states and different areas. So there could be too many answers from this.
So E is the best option as it explains the behavior of the people, though it is still slightly flawed.
Thank you for the explanation!

can you break down this argument in conclusion and premises and explain how E is correct ? I read others comment but still not convinced with the description

how is the answer E? arent all lands insured against disaster? Pls help

The argument says subsidy is a partial cause as people are not vigilant enough before selecting site. But if people are vigilant, the author still assumes that it is possible to know whether the land is safe.

Posted from my mobile device